In bureaucratic fights, people assume money wins. It doesn’t. Clean structure wins. You don’t need a million-dollar war chest; you need a clean vehicle, a preserved injury, and the discipline to let procedure do the damage.

I am currently litigating a First Amendment case (SDFL 0:24-cv-60623) against Florida State Representative Chip (aka Chip!) LaMarca for unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The forum is his official X (formerly Twitter) account. The issue is not tone or civility. It is state action in a digital public square.

This case is not about outrage. It is about architecture.

It is, in a nutshell, a novel lawsuit that’s at the cutting edge of constitutional rights.

And that, pallies, is not by mistake.

The Digital State: Anchoring Authority Where It Actually Lives

The Supreme Court’s decision in Lindke v. Freed (learn more) clarified when a public official’s social-media activity becomes state action. Most pro se litigants fail this test immediately because they argue feelings: unfairness, disrespect, offense.

Vibes! Vibes! Give me the vibes!

Er, not.

My amended complaint does none of that.

It treats LaMarca’s X account as a functional extension of his office. The pleading documents how taxpayer-funded staff, legislative messaging, and official communications are routed through that account. The question is not whether the platform is private; the question is whether state authority is being exercised.

Once that anchor is set, the Constitution attaches automatically. If an official uses a digital forum to conduct public business, he does not get to selectively silence constituents.

Even a douche-bag like Chip!.

The $1 Nominal Damages Claim: Closing the Mootness Exit

Most First Amendment cases die quietly through mootness. The official unblocks the plaintiff, claims the issue was accidental, and asks the court to dismiss because the problem has been “resolved.”

That’s what happened with my last Federal pro se lawsuit (Stevens vs. Broward Schools). The district took down the church signs, and thanks to that, mooted the case, as I asked for was injunctive relief.

Being pro se, there is SO MUCH to learn, but that’s a lesson now hard-wired into me; to wit, that maneuver fails here for one reason: nominal damages.

By seeking $1, the case preserves a completed constitutional injury that cannot be undone by belated compliance. This is not symbolic. It is procedural. The Supreme Court has been explicit (in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski): a past violation coupled with nominal damages keeps jurisdiction alive.

The dollar is not the point.
The irreversibility is.

Once the injury is locked into the record, the case must be decided on the merits. There is no procedural off-ramp.

In other words, technically speaking, go right ahead and eat me, Chip!.

Record Construction: Playing the Long Game Deliberately

This litigation is not aimed at a quick settlement. My pleadings are drafted for appellate durability, allowing for a possible, albeit remote, pathway to the US Supreme Court.

My odds of reaching SCOTUS? Imagine completing a marathon during a hurricane … but it’s a non-zero number, and like Texas hold’em, if you have a Chip! chip and a chair, you’re in the game.

Federal cases are not won by rhetoric; they are won by records. Every exhibit, filing, and procedural decision either strengthens or contaminates the path upward. The objective is a clean record that survives review by the Eleventh Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court.

And boy of boy, do I have a record (along with a fuck-ton of Chip!’s problematic tweets).

That means:

• No extraneous claims
• No emotional pleading
• No procedural shortcuts

Each filing is constructed as if it will be read by judges who were not present for the early skirmishes. Because eventually, it will be.

Administrative Pressure, Properly Defined

This work is sometimes described—incorrectly—as harassment or “lawfare.” That framing misunderstands the mechanism.

Administrative pressure is not noise. It is the predictable outcome of strict compliance with statutory and procedural rules. When an institution collapses under that pressure, the failure is internal.

Nothing in this case relies on volume, bad faith, or intimidation. It relies on:

• Statutory clarity
• Process adherence
• Deadline enforcement

When systems depend on discretion to survive, neutrality becomes destabilizing.

That is not aggression.
That is exposure.

Observation, Not Coordination

I am a pro se litigant. All filings are my own.

That said, federal courts operate in public. Well-structured cases attract attention. Law schools, civil-rights clinics, and appellate practitioners routinely observe cases that present clean legal questions and preserved issues.

Observation is not representation.
Interest is not instruction.

The only strategy here is competence. When a case is built correctly, it becomes legible to others without solicitation.

Why This Matters Beyond One Lawsuit

This case is not about winning an argument on social media.
In other words, eat me Reddit.
It is about clarifying how constitutional constraints apply in modern governance.

Officials increasingly conduct public business through digital platforms while claiming private control when challenged. That contradiction cannot survive consistent application of constitutional doctrine.

If the public square has moved online, so has the First Amendment.

The Real Bet

When officials block critics, they are not betting they are right.
They are betting the other side will quit.

Miss a deadline.
Take a shortcut.
Get tired.

This case is built on the opposite assumption.

Every time LaMarca reviews his legal bills (funded by the Florida taxpayer),  he should understand the imbalance clearly: the plaintiff’s demand is $1. The cost incurred is the consequence of suppressing speech.

Bring your own dollar.
Build clean.
Let the system explain itself.